STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEANDRE PARKER (16-04-1096 AND 16-04-1097, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2026-17T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
v. May 13, 2019
APPELLATE DIVISION
DEANDRE PARKER,
Defendant-Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted April 25, 2018 – Decided May 13, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 16-04-1096
and 16-04-1097.
Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor,
attorney for appellant (Frank J. Ducoat, Special
Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
respondent (Margaret R. McLane, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
An Essex County grand jury returned Indictment No. 16-04-1096
charging defendant Deandre Parker with second degree unlawful possession of
a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), fourth degree possession of hollow-nose
ammunition, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f), and third degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A.
2C:29-2(a)(3)(a). Indictment No. 16-04-1097, arising under the same core of
operative facts, charged defendant with second degree possession of a handgun
by a person previously convicted of one of the crimes listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:39 -
7(b).
Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence seized by the police
that formed the basis for these charges. The State filed a brief opposing the
motion, which included the indictments returned by the grand jury, an incident
report prepared and filed by one of the police officers who arrested defendant,
and the transcript of the grand jury minutes. Defendant's reply included a
computer aided dispatch (CAD) report. In an order dated September 18, 2017,
the trial court granted defendant's motion without conducting an evidentiary
hearing or considering oral argument from counsel. The judge explained the
basis of his ruling in a letter-opinion attached to the order.
On October 7, 2017, the State filed a motion for reconsideration. In an
order dated November 22, 2017, accompanied by a letter-opinion, the trial
judge denied the State's motion for reconsideration, again without affording
A-2026-17T2
2
counsel the opportunity to present oral argument. By leave granted, the State
now argues the motion judge erred when he suppressed the physical evidence
without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We agree and reverse. Because
the parties dispute the material facts that led to defendant's arrest and
subsequent indictment, the motion judge was required to conduct an
evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 3:5-7(c). We gather the following
account of events from the documents the parties presented to the motion
judge in support of their respective positions.
At approximately 11:44 p.m. on February 4, 2016, Newark Police
Department detectives assigned to the Firearm Interdiction Team (FIT)
responded to a report of "shots fired" near the intersection of Avon Avenue
and South 12th Street. Upon arrival, the detectives saw two men, later
identified as defendant and Quadri Cureton, standing by the driver-side door of
a parked car. As Detective Lamin Barryoh approached them, he saw defendant
drop a silver metal object; Barryoh also heard the sound of the object as it hit
the ground. Barryoh testified before the grand jury that Detective Holmes 1
retrieved the metal object and "immediately recognized that that metal object
1
The incident report Barryoh filed indicates that the five FIT detectives who
responded to the report of "shots fired" that day were himself, Detective J.
Duran, Detective P. Hamilton, and Essex County Sheriff's Department
Detectives A. Holmes and S. Dellavelle.
A-2026-17T2
3
was, in fact, a revolver." Holmes thereafter yelled "gun, gun" to alert the other
officers at the scene.
According to Barryoh, when he attempted to arrest defendant, he resisted
by "flailing his hands." He was able to control defendant and effectuate the
arrest with the assistance of the other officers at the scene. The Crime Scene
Unit took possession of the handgun and found it was a .38 caliber revolver
that contained "two live rounds of ball ammunition[,] . . . one hollow -point
round[,]" and three spent rounds. A subsequent search of defendant's criminal
history revealed he had two open arrest warrants and prior convictions for
crimes listed as predicate offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7.
In his September 18, 2017 letter-opinion, the motion judge included a
"Counterstatement of Facts" derived exclusively from defense counsel's
motion brief. In this alternative narrative of events, defendant denied every
material factual contention made by the State. Specifically, defense counsel
claimed that defendant "at no point in time dropped a gun beneath or beside
the white vehicle . . . [or] resist[ed] arrest[.]" Despite the obvious
irreconcilable material differences between the State's version of events and
the account described by defense counsel, the motion judge found: "Defendant
has not challenged the State's facts with sufficient specificity to warrant a
hearing." After citing State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 250 (2007), a case that
A-2026-17T2
4
involved the articulable suspicion required by police officers to request
consent to search a car, State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 126-28 (2002), in
which the Court addressed the requirements for a valid investigative detention,
and other inapposite cases, the judge concluded: "[T]he Incident Report and
Grand Jury transcript did not illustrate that the detectives, based on their
experience and training, had an inclination of what the dropped object was
between the time it was dropped and the time [d]efendant was called over by
Detective Barryoh. Therefore, this stop was unlawful."
Pursuant to Rule 3:5-7(c), "[i]f material facts are disputed, testimony
thereon shall be taken in open court." Our Supreme Court has also recently
made clear:
The proper mechanism through which to explore the
constitutionality of warrantless police conduct is an
evidentiary hearing. At evidentiary hearings, the State
presents witnesses to substantiate its basis for the
challenged warrantless conduct, and the defense is
afforded the opportunity to confront and cross-
examine the State's witnesses.
[State v. Atwood, 232 N.J. 433, 445 (2018) (citations
omitted).]
Here, the parties made clear in their respective written submissions that
they had diametrically irreconcilable accounts about what Detective Barryoh
claimed occurred when he approached defendant. Under Rule 3:5-7(c), the
motion judge must conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 evidentiary hearing to provide the
A-2026-17T2
5
parties the opportunity to probe the veracity of Barryoh's testimony. The
motion judge thereafter must make factual findings that will be substantially
influenced by an opportunity to hear and see the witnesses. State v. Gamble,
218 N.J. 412, 424-25 (2014). Equally problematic is the judge's decision to
adjudicate this motion without affording counsel the opportunity to present
oral argument. "The availability of oral argument on criminal motions is
implicit within the language of [Rule] 1:6-2(a)." State v. Mayron, 344 N.J.
Super. 382, 386 (App. Div. 2001). Oral advocacy is a fundamental aspect of
our criminal justice system and should be encouraged, preserved, and
protected.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-2026-17T2
6